Computer underground Digest Tue Jan 31, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 07 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Tue Jan 31, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 07 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson He's baaaack: E. T. Shrdlu CONTENTS, #7.07 (Tue, Jan 31, 1995) File 1--"Magna Carta" digest: A Commentary File 2--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 14:14:52 +0000 From: rkmoore@IOL.IE(Richard K. Moore) Subject: File 1--"Magna Carta" digest: A Commentary Digest of PFF's Magna Carta - Part 1 of 2 By: Richard K. Moore 17 January, 1995 I reviewed the Magna Carta in a previous message. This document is a condensed version of the Magna Carta itself, with commentary. Some sections, especially the introductory material, are quoted in entirety. Some sections are summarized by me, with representative passages cited. Other sections are simply boiled down with ellipses to their meat. You will find editorial comments scattered throughout. These couldn't go in the review, because they need to be adjacent to the material to make sense. -Richard ---------------------------------------------------- From-- Phil Are To-- rre@weber.ucsd.edu Subject-- "Magna Carta" This is the so-called "Magna Carta" from Newt Gingrich's "Progress and Freedom Foundation" that I discussed in TNO 1(12). It is formatted precisely as I received it from PFF. Date-- 9 Jan 95 17:25:21 EDT From--Kevin Lacobie Subject--Your request for "Cyberspace and the American Dream" ...Below is a copy of the Magna Carta paper. A listserv-based discussion group will be formed soon for this paper, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation *promise further activities* in this area. If you have any more questions about PFF, please direct them to PFF@aol.com. If you have questions about the MagnaCarta discussion group, please direct them to info@bionomics.org. Kevin Lacobie postmaster for @bionomics.org [*emphasis* added throughout - rkm] ___________________________________________________ Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age Release 1.2 // August 22, 1994 ---------------------------------------- This statement represents the cumulative wisdom and innovation of many dozens of people. It is based primarily on the thoughts of four "co-authors": Ms. Esther Dyson; Mr. George Gilder; Dr. George Keyworth; and Dr. Alvin Toffler. This release 1.2 has the final "imprimatur" of no one. In the spirit of the age: It is copyrighted solely for the purpose of preventing someone else from doing so. If you have it, you can use it any way you want. However, major passages are from works copyrighted individually by the authors, used here by permission; these will be duly acknowledged in release 2.0. It is a living document. Release 2.0 will be released in October 1994. We hope you'll use it is to tell us how to make it better. Do so by: - Sending E-Mail to PFF@AOL.COM - Faxing 202/484-9326 or calling 202/484-2312 - Sending POM (plain old mail) to 1250 H. St. NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20005 (The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a not-for-profit research and educational organization dedicated to creating a positive vision of the future founded in the historic principles of the American idea.) ---------------------------------------- PREAMBLE The central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter. In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth -- in the form of physical resources -- has been losing value and significance. The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things. In a First Wave economy, land and farm labor are the main "factors of production." In a Second Wave economy, the land remains valuable while the "labor" becomes massified around machines and larger industries. In a Third Wave economy, the central resource -- a single word broadly encompassing data, information, images, symbols, culture, ideology, and values -- is _actionable_ knowledge. The industrial age is not fully over. In fact, classic Second Wave sectors (oil, steel, auto-production) have learned how to benefit from Third Wave technological breakthroughs -- just as the First Wave's agricultural productivity benefited exponentially from the Second Wave's farm-mechanization. But the Third Wave, and the _Knowledge Age_ it has opened, will not deliver on its potential unless it adds social and political dominance to its accelerating technological and economic strength. This means repealing Second Wave laws and retiring Second Wave attitudes. It also gives to leaders of the advanced democracies a special responsibility -- to facilitate, hasten, and explain the transition. As humankind explores this new "electronic frontier" of knowledge, it must confront again the most profound questions of how to organize itself for the common good. The meaning of freedom, structures of self-government, definition of *property*, nature of *competition*, conditions for *cooperation*, sense of community and nature of *progress* will each be redefined for the Knowledge Age -- just as they were redefined for a new age of industry some 250 years ago. What our 20th-century countrymen came to think of as the "American dream," and what resonant thinkers referred to as "the promise of American life" or "the American Idea," emerged from the turmoil of 19th-century industrialization. Now it's our turn: The knowledge revolution, and the Third Wave of historical change it powers, summon us to renew the dream and enhance the promise. THE NATURE OF CYBERSPACE The Internet -- the huge (2.2 million computers), global (135 countries), rapidly growing (10-15% a month) network that has captured the American imagination -- is only a tiny part of cyberspace. So just what is cyberspace? More ecosystem than machine, cyberspace is a bioelectronic environment that is literally universal: It exists everywhere there are telephone wires, coaxial cables, fiber-optic lines or electromagnetic waves. This environment is "inhabited" by *knowledge*, including incorrect ideas, existing in electronic form. It is connected to the physical environment by portals which *allow people to see what's inside*, to put knowledge in, to alter it, and to take knowledge out. Some of these portals are one-way (e.g. television receivers and television transmitters); others are two-way (e.g. telephones, computer modems). [ Hey! I though *we* were the residents of [ cyberspace, not the the electrons! [ [ Here's where the condensation starts. [ [ They continue building the model that cyberspace is [ a big data world that people can access. No [ perception of cyberspace *embodying* communities of [ people. People are to participate as individual [ consumer/navigator of cyberspace's resources. [ [ Here's a representative sample of the slogan- [ coating that colors their presentation: ...Cyberspace is the land of knowledge, and the exploration of that land can be a civilization's truest, highest calling. The opportunity is now before us to empower every person to pursue that calling in his or her own way. The challenge is as daunting as the opportunity is great. The Third Wave has profound implications for the nature and meaning of property, of the marketplace, of community and of individual freedom. As it emerges, it shapes new codes of behavior that move each organism and institution -- family, neighborhood, church group, company, government, nation -- inexorably beyond standardization and centralization, as well as beyond the materialist's obsession with energy, money and control. [ Next comes the first entry of the leit-motiv: [ "government" as the villain of the story. It also spells the death of the central institutional paradigm of modern life, the bureaucratic organization. (Governments, including the American government, are the last great redoubt of bureaucratic power on the face of the planet, and for them the coming change will be profound and probably traumatic.)... [ Corporations, as a seat of bureaucratic power, [ manage to escape notice here. Ah well, so many [ details, so little time... [ [ Next, they show how hip they are by pointing out [ the narrowness of the "superhighway" metaphor, and [ the aptness of the "cyberspace" [ metaphor. They break the 2nd-wave bounds of linear [ ASCII messaging to give us a brilliant two- [ dimensional table with which to compare the [ metaphors in a futuristic light: _Information Superhighway_ / _Cyberspace_ Limited Matter / Unlimited Knowledge Centralized / Decentralized Moving on a grid / Moving in space Government ownership / A vast array of ownerships Bureaucracy / Empowerment Efficient but not hospitable / Hospitable if you customize it Withstand the elements / Flow, float and fine-tune Unions and contractors / Associations and volunteers Liberation from First Wave / Liberation from Second Wave Culmination of Second Wave / Riding the Third Wave ... [ Well, OK, I buy it. I bought it ten years ago. [ [ --- [ [ The first major character in the story now makes an [ appearance. He is brother "private property", [ endowed by his creator with inalienable rights. [ Those rights are to be the very [ cornerstone of the cyberspace frontier: THE NATURE AND OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY Clear and enforceable property rights are essential for markets to work. Defining them is a central function of government. Most of us have "known" that for a long time. But to create the new cyberspace environment is to create _new_ property -- that is, new means of creating goods (including ideas) that serve people. The property that makes up cyberspace comes in several forms: Wires, coaxial cable, computers and other "hardware"; the electromagnetic spectrum; and "intellectual property" -- the knowledge that dwells in and defines cyberspace. [ [ Cyberspace is clearly defined as being a repository [ for "knowledge property". This definition is [ summarized in their phrases: [ [ "the knowledge that dwells in and defines [ cyberspace" [ [ " to create...cyberspace...is to create _new_ [ property" [ [ They next set out a dichotomy -- we are to decide [ between two options for cyber-property ownership, [ private & public: In each of these areas, two questions that must be answered. First, what does "ownership" _mean_? What is the nature of the property itself, and what does it mean to own it? Second, once we understand what ownership means, _who_ is the owner? At the level of first principles, should ownership be public (i.e. government) or private (i.e. individuals)? ... [ Brother "private property" is asking to be accepted [ as "everyman", to be the character the reader [ identifies with. He claims to represent the [ "individual". Well... OK so far. But methinks [ Plato is entrapping me... [ [ Is it true that "public" includes no other options [ than direct government ownership? [ [ And is it true that "private" means ownership by [ individuals? [ And if so, is that all individuals, or a few [ individuals? [ The unfolding story will make this clear. [ [ --- [ [ They make one really ominous statement in this [ section: If this analysis is correct, copyright and patent protection of knowledge (or at least many forms of it) may no longer be unnecessary... [ That word "knowledge" is scary in this context. Do [ they mean that ideas and facts are to be [ patentable? We see such a trend [ in genetic engineering already. [ [ In the cyberspace context, are they proposing that [ intellectual concepts themselves will be [ patentable? If so, then presumably it will happen [ on a wholesale basis. [ Will schools pay knowledge royalties to teach the [ three R's? [ [ --- [ [ Their next section is entitled "THE NATURE OF THE [ MARKETPLACE". I'll pass most of it along, trimmed [ by a few ellipses and punctuated by asterisks: THE NATURE OF THE MARKETPLACE Inexpensive knowledge destroys economies-of-scale. Customized knowledge permits"just in time" production for an ever rising number of *goods*. Technological progress creates new means of serving old markets, turning *one-time monopolies* into *competitive battlegrounds*. These phenomena are altering the nature of the marketplace, ...transformed by technological progress from a "*natural monopoly*" to one in which competition is the rule. Three recent examples: * The market for "mail" has been made competitive by the development of fax machines and overnight delivery ...During the past 20 years, the market for television has been transformed from ... a few broadcast TV stations to one in which consumers can choose among broadcast, cable and satellite services. * The market for local telephone services, until recently a monopoly..., is rapidly being made competitive by the advent of wireless service and the entry of cable television into voice communication... The advent of new technology and new products creates the potential for _dynamic competition...Dynamic competition is better, because it allows competing technologies and new products to challenge the old ones and, if they really are better, to replace them. Static competition might lead to faster and stronger horses. Dynamic competition gives us the automobile... Then the personal-computing industry exploded, leaving older-style big-business-focused computing with a stagnant, piece of a burgeoning total market. As IBM lost market-share, many people became convinced that America had lost the ability to compete. By the mid-1980s, such alarmism had reached from Washington all the way into the heart of Silicon Valley. But the real story was the renaissance of American business and technological leadership. In the transition from mainframes to PCs, a vast new market was created. This market was characterized by *dynamic competition* consisting of easy access and low barriers to entry. Start-ups by the dozens took on the larger established companies -- and won. ...The reason for America's victory in the computer wars of the 1980s is that dynamic competition was allowed to occur, in an area so breakneck and pell-mell that government would've had a hard time controlling it _even had it been paying attention_. The challenge for policy in the 1990s is to permit, even encourage, dynamic competition in every aspect of the cyberspace marketplace. [ The meat of the story is now unfolding. Cyberspace [ is simply a new mass communications marketplace. [ The players are telcos, fiber operators, wireless [ providers, and entrepreneurs of all flavors. [ [ Consumers play no role in this drama, their benefit [ comes when they get to choose among the commercial [ services being arranged for them. [ [ Brother "private property" who was "the [ individual" in scene one, has now become a typical [ corporate board member, dealing with mergers, [ acquisitions, new-product planning, and new forms [ of competition. [ [ Notice the explicit call for *dynamic competition* [ as being central to a good cyberspace. Watch later [ how they switch sides on this issue several times. [ [ --- [ [ Now on to the next section: THE NATURE OF FREEDOM Overseas friends of America sometimes point out that the U.S. Constitution is unique -- because it states explicitly that power resides with the people, who delegate it to the government, rather than the other way around... This idea -- central to our free society -- was the result of more than 150 years of intellectual and political ferment, from the Mayflower Compact to the U.S. Constitution, as explorers struggled to establish the terms under which they would tame a new frontier. And as America continued to explore new frontiers --from the Northwest Territory to the Oklahoma land-rush -- it consistently returned to this fundamental principle of rights, reaffirming, time after time, that power resides with the people. [ [ Those of you with color screens probably noticed [ the red-white-and-blue background on this [ stationery. [ [ The argument has touched deep ground here. Our [ American heritage, our very duty as American [ citizens, demands that we agree that power in [ cyberspace should we reside with "the people". [ [ Fine, until you find out who "the people" [ are. Stay tuned. Cyberspace is the latest American frontier. As this and other societies make ever deeper forays into it, the proposition that ownership of this frontier resides first _with the people_ is central to achieving its true potential... [ I'm skipping four long paragraphs of fluff, to the [ effect that the struggle for freedom never ends, [ and that this generation must do its part. [ [ Next comes the second appearance of the leit-motif. [ The "evil government" character broadens out to [ represent the entire "2nd Wave" mentality. [ [ Government itself is possibly one of the 2nd Wave [ anachronisms to be left behind. [ * In a Second Wave world, it might make sense for government to insist on the right to peer into every computer by requiring that each contain a special "clipper chip." * In a Second Wave world, it might make sense for government to assume ownership over the broadcast spectrum and demand massive payments from citizens for the right to use it. * In a Second Wave world, it might make sense for government to prohibit entrepreneurs from entering new markets and providing new services. * And, in a Second Wave world, dominated by a few old-fashioned, one-way media "networks," it might even make sense for government to influence which political viewpoints would be carried over the airwaves... [ [ I just heard about the 3rd Wave last month, and [ already we're seeing a revisionist history of the [ 2nd Wave. [ [ What America have these guys been living in? We've [ encouraged entrepreneurs to enter new markets [ throughout our history, from railroad building, [ to mining, to Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, [ Henry Ford, the aircraft industry, ad infinitum. [ [ I never made massive payments to the government to [ watch TV. Which planet are these guys from? [ [ But they *do* make sense if you accept the [ equation: [ "citizen" == "communications company" [ because communication companies do pay license [ fees. But those fees are nominal for corporations, [ though they might seem large to an individual. [ [ Thus they skate from one meaning of "individual" to [ the other, even in mid thought. [ [ --- [ [ The next section is called THE ESSENCE OF THE [ COMMUNITY. I'll skip most of it -- it's really [ vacuous. I'll just give you the last two paragraphs [ to illustrate the flavor of this idling segment of [ the storyline: "...But unlike the private property of today," Salin continued, "the potential variations on design and prevailing customs will explode, because many variations can be implemented cheaply in software. And the 'externalities' associated with variations can drop; what happens in one cyberspace can be kept from affecting other cyberspaces." "Cyberspaces" is a wonderful _pluralistic_ word to open more minds to the Third Wave's civilizing potential. Rather than being a centrifugal force helping to tear society apart, cyberspace can be one of the main forms of glue holding together an increasingly free and diverse society. [ This next section is the heart of the story. [ Evil "government" is to be vanquished by brother [ "private property" -- watch as the two masks [ ("individual" and "communications provider") [ switch back and forth faster than the mind can see. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT The current Administration has identified the right goal: Reinventing government for the 21st Century....This said, it is essential that we understand what it really means to create a Third Wave government and begin the process of transformation. ...The most pressing need...is to revamp the policies and programs that are slowing the creation of cyberspace...if there is to be an "industrial policy for the knowledge age," it should focus on removing barriers to competition and massively deregulating the fast-growing telecommunications and computing industries... ...the transition from the Second Wave to the Third Wave will require a level of government _activity_ not seen since the New Deal.... [ A nice-sounding vision for cyberspace is pulled in [ from the New York Times: "The amount of electronic material the superhighway can carry is dizzying, compared to the relatively narrow range of broadcast TV and the limited number of cable channels. Properly constructed and regulated, it could be open to all who wish to speak, publish and communicate. None of the interactive services will be possible, however, if we have an eight-lane data superhighway rushing into every home and only a narrow footpath coming back out. Instead of settling for a multimedia version of the same entertainment that is increasingly dissatisfying on today's TV, we need a superhighway that encourages the production and distribution of a broader, more diverse range of programming" (New York Times 11/24/93 p. A25). [ [ The individualist aspects of this vision play no [ further part in our story. The sole item adopted [ by PFF seems to be the requirement for [ symmetric bandwidth. Could this be establishing a [ pecking order between telcos and cable-operators, [ giving the edge to the telcos with their more [ symmetric architectures? ... an open question. [ [ We now come to an amazing shift of ground in our [ story. Its almost Khafka'esque or even [ Ionesco'esque in its blatant reversal of [ established story line. [ [ What they're going to do is passionately espouse [ the creation of a gigantic monopoly among the [ telcos and cable operators to build and operate [ cyberspace. Even though "dynamic competition" was [ the rallying cry up to this point, we're now to [ learn that "contrived competition between phone [ companies and cable operators" "will not deliver [ the two-way, multimedia and more civilized tele- [ society Kapor and Berman sketch." ...reducing barriers to entry and innovation [is] the only effective near-term path to Universal Access. In fact, it can be argued that a near-term national interactive multimedia network is impossible unless regulators permit much greater **collaboration** between the cable industry and phone companies. The latter's huge fiber resources...could be joined with the huge asset of 57 million broadband links...to produce a new kind of national network -- multimedia, interactive and (as costs fall) increasingly accessible to Americans of modest means. That is why obstructing such collaboration -- in the cause of forcing a competition between the cable and phone industries -- is *socially elitist*. To the extent it prevents collaboration between the cable industry and the phone companies, present federal policy actually thwarts the Administration's own goals of access and empowerment... ...If Washington forces the phone companies and cable operators to develop supplementary and duplicative networks, most other advanced industrial countries will attain cyberspace democracy -- via an interactive multimedia "open platform" -- before America does, despite this nation's technological dominance. ...A contrived competition between phone companies and cable operators will not deliver the two-way, multimedia and more civilized tele-society Kapor and Berman sketch. Nor is it enough to simply "get the government out of the way." Real issues of antitrust must be addressed, and no sensible framework exists today for addressing them. Creating the conditions for universal access to interactive multimedia will require a fundamental rethinking of government policy. [ How orwellian can you get? Those of us who bought [ into the glory of dynamic competition earlier on [ have now become "socially elitist" -- unless we [ have a mind which can switch identities and change [ positions as adroitly as our illustrious authors. [ [ Their cyberspace manifesto now reads: [ (1) strong private property rights [ (2) infrastructure to be owned by a [ private monopoly [ --- [ [ The pace of doublespeak picks up now. In the [ next section we're back in the "competition" camp, [ finding out why regulation must be eliminated from [ the communications game, to be replaced by [ an anti-trust model. [ ...Promoting Dynamic Competition Technological progress is turning the telecommunications marketplace from one characterized by "economies of scale" and "natural monopolies" into a prototypical competitive market. The challenge for government is to encourage this shift -- to create the circumstances under which new competitors and new technologies will challenge the natural monopolies of the past. Price-and-entry regulation makes sense for natural monopolies. The tradeoff is a straightforward one: The monopolist submits to price regulation by the state, in return for an exclusive franchise on the market. But what happens when it becomes economically desirable to have more than one provider in a market? The continuation of regulation under these circumstances stops progress in its tracks. It prevents new entrants from introducing new technologies and new products, while depriving the regulated monopolist of any incentive to do so on its own. Price-and-entry regulation, in short, is the antithesis of dynamic competition. The alternative to regulation is antitrust. Antitrust law is designed to prevent the acts and practices that can lead to the creation of new monopolies, or harm consumers by forcing up prices, limiting access to competing products or reducing service quality. Antitrust law is the means by which America has, for over 120 years, fostered competition in markets where many providers can and should compete. The market for telecommunications services --telephone, cable, satellite, wireless -- is now such a market...price/entry regulation of telecommunications services...should therefore be replaced by antitrust law as rapidly as possible. ...there should be no half steps. Moving from a regulated environment to a competitive one is -- to borrow a cliche -- like changing from driving on the left side of the road to driving on the right: You can't do it gradually. [ [ Though the "justification" arguments illogically [ contradict one another, the "conclusions" of those [ arguments add up to a coherent proposal. [ [ What the authors are proposing is an [ *unregulated monopoly* [ [ It is not surprising that they had to twist [ logic several times to pack both words into a [ manifesto, and make it seem like both are [ natural and consistent consequences of [ "competitive spirit" and the "American Dream". [ [ Their cyberspace manifesto now reads: [ (1) strong private property rights [ (2) infrastructure to be owned by a [ unregulated private monopoly [ --- [ [ Next they double-click on property rights: [ ...Defining and Assigning Property Rights ...Defining property rights in cyberspace is perhaps the single most urgent and important task for government information policy. Doing so will be a complex task, and each key area -- the electromagnetic spectrum, intellectual property, cyberspace itself (including the right to privacy) -- involves unique challenges. The important points here are: First, this is a "central" task of government... Secondly, the key principle of ownership by the people -- private ownership -- should govern every deliberation. *Government does not own cyberspace, the people do.*... [ [ Here's where the doublespeak pays off. They can [ make a statement like "the people own cyberspace" [ and manage to imply they are empowering [ the individual, when they've already stated clearly [ that ownership is to be vested in a large monopoly [ conglomerate. I must tip my hat to their skill. [ [ In an earlier review, I described this document as [ grossly rambling and inconsistent. I now have more [ respect for it. It's masterfully deceitful, and [ manages to marshall contradictory arguments in [ support of a coherent business proposal. [ [ --- [ [ We now move to another corporate business concern. [ Such concerns are clearly the domain of serious [ discourse addressed in the Magna Carta. The rest of [ the verbiage is a meaningless, crowd-pleasing [ smokescreen. [ [ Here we have a plea for rapid capital depreciation. [ That would be quite a windfall for a conglomerate [ investing billions in an infrastructure. [ [ Once again the taxpayer is asked to subsidize the [ R&D bill for new technology, but the ownership [ benefit is to go exclusively to the private [ operator. This has been the pattern since the New [ Deal. ...Creating Pro-Third-Wave Tax and Accounting Rules We need a whole set of new ways of accounting, both at the level of the enterprise, and of the economy. ...At the level of the enterprise, obsolete accounting procedures cause us to systematically _overvalue_ physical assets (i.e. property) and _undervalue_ human-resource assets and intellectual assets. So, if you are an inspired young entrepreneur looking to start a software company, or a service company of some kind, and it is heavily information-intensive, you will have a harder time raising capital than the guy next door who wants to put in a set of beat-up old machines to participate in a topped-out industry. On the tax side, the same thing is true... It is vital that accounting and tax policies -- both those promulgated by private-sector regulators like the Financial Accounting Standards Board and those promulgated by the government at the IRS and elsewhere -- start to reflect the shortened capital life-cycles of the Knowledge Age, and the increasing role of _intangible_ capital as "wealth." [ Their cyberspace manifesto now reads: [ (1) strong private property rights [ (2) infrastructure to be owned by a [ unregulated private monopoly [ (3) investment to be written off rapidly [ --- [ [ Next they get into a discussion of transforming [ government. I'm not sure why they're departing [ from their focused agenda of launching cyberspace [ as a private monopoly. Perhaps they think they're [ on a roll, and might as well go for the whole [ enchilada -- a corporate state. ...Creating a Third Wave Government Going beyond cyberspace policy per se, government must remake itself and redefine its relationship to the society at large...there are some yardsticks we can apply to policy proposals...[vacuous ones omitted] _Does it centralize control_? Second Wave policies centralize power in bureaucratic institutions; Third Wave policies work to spread power -- to empower those closest to the decision... A serious effort to apply these tests to every area of government activity -- from the defense and intelligence community to health care and education -- would ultimately produce a complete transformation of government as we know it. Since that is what's needed, let's start applying. [ With their usual twists of logic, we'd probably [ learn that other constellations of private [ interests, perhaps including additional unregulated [ monopolies, should be running all these other [ areas of public life as well. [ [ The closing section is vacuous but for [ background smoke. I'll cite a few representative [ paragraphs... [ GRASPING THE FUTURE The conflict between Second Wave and Third Wave groupings is the central political tension cutting through our society today. The more basic political question is not who controls the last days of industrial society, but who shapes the new civilization rapidly rising to replace it. Who, in other words, will shape the nature of cyberspace and its impact on our lives and institutions?... The Third Wave sector includes not only high-flying computer and electronics firms and biotech start-ups. It embraces advanced, information-driven manufacturing in every industry... For the time being, the entrenched powers of the Second Wave dominate Washington and the statehouses... ...a "mass movement" for cyberspace is still hard to see. Unlike the "masses" during the industrial age, this rising Third Wave constituency is highly diverse...This very heterogeneity contributes to its lack of political awareness. It is far harder to unify than the masses of the past. [ I guess the Magna Carta is to bring about this [ unity. Perhaps they seek to form an "internet cult" [ and the Magna Carta is the "mind-programming" [ formula being trial-posted. I think they'll find [ most of us not that easily programmed. We're too [ professionally familiar with the technology of [ programming, and are equipped to judge the internal [ consistency of models. Yet there are key themes on which this constituency-to-come can agree. To start with, liberation -- from Second Wave rules, regulations, taxes and laws laid in place to serve the smokestack barons and bureaucrats of the past. Next, of course, must come the creation -- creation of a new civilization, founded in the eternal truths of the American Idea. It is time to embrace these challenges, to grasp the future and pull ourselves forward. If we do so, we will indeed renew the American Dream and enhance the promise of American life. [ [ There you have it. The American Dream and frontier [ competitiveness lead us inevitably to the following [ mandate for cyberspace: [ (1) strong private property rights [ (2) infrastructure to be owned by an [ unregulated private monopoly [ (3) investment to be written off rapidly [ [ Buying into this vision upholds the honor of [ our forefathers, fights big government, empowers [ the individual, and ushers in the American [ millennium. [ [ Simple, succinct...and packed full of lies. [ [ My only question is: why did the document have to [ be so long? Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - Wexford, Ireland - fax +353 53 23970 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 2--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU Sociology gopher at: URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #7.07 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank